PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Number7 on June 12, 2024, 07:36:11 PM
-
Big headlines on the news tonight about the “historic” rain in south Florida. Lots of babbling about global climate change while the lefties babble about historic rainfall, just a week after they were all babbling “historic drought conditions.
All this lefty democrat asshole babbling has one thing in common that escapes all the news services.
This “historic “ rainfall is historic only since 1945 when it was worse.
The “historic drought conditions” have been historic only since 1998, but more likely during the spring and winter of 2003. The records are carefully unmentioned.
-
Are you of the opinion that the climate is not changing?
-
Are you of the opinion that the climate should be static?
-
Are you of the opinion that the climate is not changing?
Climate is changing. Climate has always changed. Humans have nothing to do with it. Giving money to government won't stop it from changing. And who's to say that it isn't changing back to where it should be?
-
What is the "correct" temperature for every day of the year at every point on the planet?
-
What is the "correct" temperature for every day of the year at every point on the planet?
42.
It took me 7.5 million years to compute that.
-
42.
It took me 7.5 million years to compute that.
Without a government grant? No one will believe your result.
-
42.
It took me 7.5 million years to compute that.
I believe the liberal correct answer to that is: that question is racist.
-
Are you of the opinion that the climate should be static?
Did I say anything to give you that impression? Or was that just a knee jerk response?
-
Climate is changing. Climate has always changed. Humans have nothing to do with it. Giving money to government won't stop it from changing. And who's to say that it isn't changing back to where it should be?
Like I said to Bob, did I say any thing to indicate that that?
-
What is the "correct" temperature for every day of the year at every point on the planet?
Why would you even ask such an idiotic question?
-
Did I say anything to give you that impression?
no less than the OP suggesting that the climate wasn't changing.
sauce, goose, and such
Or was that just a knee jerk response?
indeed.
-
Why would you even ask such an idiotic question?
It's designed to cause Liberals to have spastic attacks when asked.
-
Like I said to Bob, did I say any thing to indicate that that?
You asked, "Are you of the opinion that the climate is not changing?" I quoted you, but added my own opinion. I did not aim that comment at you. I apologize.
-
You asked, "Are you of the opinion that the climate is not changing?" I quoted you, but added my own opinion. I did not aim that comment at you. I apologize.
Apology accepted. Also, apology offered.
-
The climate is changing.
Whether or not man is causing it (or even contributing to it)or can do anything about it is another question.
-
Apology accepted. Also, apology offered.
Accepted. >> Hug << (manly, not gay)
-
no less than the OP suggesting that the climate wasn't changing.
sauce, goose, and such
indeed.
I NEVER suggested the climate wasn’t changing, but I absolutely reject the lefty bullshit lies about mmgw.
That is pure, idiotic, stupidity, combined with egos so large leftists hate the idea that the earth is bigger than man’s power to change it constantly and without regard for facts, truth, or logic.
-
Accepted. >> Hug << (manly, not gay)
Or as the young’uns put it these days, “no homo”.
-
(http://)
We don’t want to overlook the real problem.
-
now THAT's funny. Hilarious
do the people making that claim think the alledged "increased risk" would persuade people to take "climate change" more seriously?
-
(http://)
We don’t want to overlook the real problem.
Wow. It’s true (that this was a claim):
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/climate-change-press-release/
Where do I begin? First, “severe weather events” indeed impact people living in coastal areas and big cities more, but the leap from severe weather to climate change is a false conclusion. There has always been severe weather. Data indicating it is more severe now than ever before is cherry picked by highly biased activists with an agenda.
Next, gay couples who have officialized their coupling are probably skewed to the upper middle class urbanized demographic who tend to locate in cities and coastal areas. This problem of being more vulnerable to severe weather impacts everyone living in these areas. Where is the outrage over urban or coastal living blacks being disproportionately affected by so-called “climate change”? Ever hear of Katrina?
Next, where you live is a voluntary choice, except for the poorest among us. I’m sure there are some dirt poor gay couples but I have a feeling most gay couples could afford to move inland or to a smaller town if they are that worried about climate changed weather events.
Oh, homophobia in flyover country you say? It was becoming less and less of a problem until the far left LBGTQETC appropriated the rainbow and started throwing it in our faces all the time, causing what little bigotry remaining in the general population to blow up again as bad as it hasn’t been since the 1950s. Call a hillbilly a bigot because he won’t use your delusional pronouns and then turn around and expect him to be accepting of you? It’s almost like the wacko LBQetc activists WANT to create hate and division, almost like they are in reality so self loathing that they revel in all the hatred they’re attracting. And aside from poor confused little kids, the biggest victims of their fascistic nonsense are sane gay men and women who had accepted equal rights a long time ago and now just want to be left alone. But they’ve been dragged against their will under the umbrella of “the LGBTQ+ community” and if they protest then like any apostate they are hated even more by the “diversity and inclusion” crowd.
-
I NEVER suggested the climate wasn’t changing, but I absolutely reject the lefty bullshit lies about mmgw.
That is pure, idiotic, stupidity, combined with egos so large leftists hate the idea that the earth is bigger than man’s power to change it constantly and without regard for facts, truth, or logic.
Bolding mine. This is an idea, but it doesn't matter who hates it because it is clearly false. That the current increase in CO2 levels is due mainly to human activity was established some time ago by looking at the abundances of carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2 - most of it comes from burning organic matter (mostly fossil fuels). That increased CO2 acts to trap outgoing infrared radiation and cause global warming has been understood for decades. There is still an outstanding question of how sensitive the climate is to a change in CO2, but there has been some recent work on the question and the most recent estimate is in the range of 2.6º to 3.9ºC per doubling of CO2 concentration. If that result is accurate, the current observed warming really is consistent with the idea that we are mostly to blame for it.
This shouldn't have anything to do with left vs. right. It's science.
-
Studies can be swayed by those who pay for the studies to get the desired end result. It's not science.
One thing is true, the last five decades we have been warned the coming of an Ice Age (in our lifetime), the dramatic sea level rises (in our lifetime), Global Warming that will kill off civilization (in our lifetime), melting of the ice caps (in our life time), etc, etc.
None of this has happened.
Climate change has been going on for millions of years, long before man appeared. It will continue long after man. Sending huge amounts of money to governments will not change it. By crippling society (ending fossil fuels) will not change it.
-
Studies can be swayed by those who pay for the studies to get the desired end result. It's not science.
One thing is true, the last five decades we have been warned the coming of an Ice Age (in our lifetime), the dramatic sea level rises (in our lifetime), Global Warming that will kill off civilization (in our lifetime), melting of the ice caps (in our life time), etc, etc.
None of this has happened.
Climate change has been going on for millions of years, long before man appeared. It will continue long after man. Sending huge amounts of money to governments will not change it. By crippling society (ending fossil fuels) will not change it.
The large body of evidence in favor of mmgw weighs against it being the result of fraudulent research. And given how strongly debated the subject has been, fraudulent research on this subject is almost certainly going to be identified and the papers retracted. The recent paper I mentioned was published in 2021, but everything else has been understood for quite a long time.
As far as sea rise, etc., they are happening. Not all sea rise is due to warming and melting ice (the Delmarva is sinking), but some of it is and it is certainly ongoing. Will civilization be killed off? Who knows? It's a ridiculous prediction to make, but this IS changing conditions planet-wide into something very different from what they've been during the rest of the Holocene.
The one point you make that I agree with is that radical solutions like giving up fossil fuels in the space of a few years would cripple society. "Renewable energy" is not ready to step in and we have stupidly given up on nuclear, so yes, the result would be disastrous. We can't let that happen either.
Oh, I also agree that the climate has been changing for millions of years. Billions, even. This time, though, we're at least partly to blame.
-
Oh man, we are hotter than ever....
-
Oh man, we are hotter than ever....
Sorry, that chart and data have not been peer reviewed.
-
The liberal religion demands everyone believe the bullshit azure is spouting, or risk shunning, criminal attacks, job loss, and the hatred of the fake ass leftist zealots that believe no one is allowed to think for themselves.
Their lies change with the weather, always babbling the same stupidity while pretending intellectual superiority.
Anyone remember fauci the fraud closing the HE IS the science?
Liberals constantly out themselves with their never ending obsession with thought control.
-
Climate is changing. Climate has always changed. Humans have nothing to do with it. Giving money to government won't stop it from changing. And who's to say that it isn't changing back to where it should be?
^^^^THIS!!!
-
Climate is changing.
True.
Climate has always changed.
True
Humans have nothing to do with it.
I'm not so sure. But I do think mankind is contributing to the climate changing faster than it would without human activity.
Giving money to government won't stop it from changing.
Agree
And who's to say that it isn't changing back to where it should be?
There is no such thing as "where it should be". Humans have adapted to the current climate. If the climate changes, people will have to adapt or die. If it changes too quickly, then humans will just die out and leave the world to whatever comes next. But the planet will survive.
-
Aren't we so bold to think we can control the climate and the planet for that matter. We have no claim to this rock.
-
This will upset snowflakes like azure, but, when a lefty, narrative spouting, twit can explain just WHAT IS the ‘right’ temperature for the Earth and why justify why that would be true, I will promise here and now to give their explanation serious thought.
As long as the bullshit is thigh high on a giraffe, full of stupid claims, idiotic conclusions, and outright lies, save your breath.
-
This will upset snowflakes like azure, but, when a lefty, narrative spouting, twit can explain just WHAT IS the ‘right’ temperature for the Earth and why justify why that would be true, I will promise here and now to give their explanation serious thought.
As long as the bullshit is thigh high on a giraffe, full of stupid claims, idiotic conclusions, and outright lies, save your breath.
When they can tell me how much climate change is natural and how much is man made, I'll listen. Can't quantify it, can't fix it.
The Left thinks we're stupid.
-
Even if some “climate change” (is it warming or is it cooling? They’ve claimed both) is due to man:
1. We can’t quantify how much of which activities have what effect.
2. Psychopaths in power will use it as an excuse to gain money from taxpayers. Almost all, if not all, schemes to fight climate change merely result in money transfer from common people to wealthy corporations, activist organizations and individual grifters.
3. Schemes to limit fossil fuel use prevents 3rd world countries from progressing and imposes a cost burden on the citizens of developed countries. Fossil fuel is still the only cost effective way for impoverished countries to modernize. Once basic needs are met, only then can the people turn their attention to less polluting energy production. Which in reality turns out to be nuclear, which the climate change nuts have spent half a century hobbling.
4. Supposed “solutions” turn out to have equal or worse problems of their own such as wind farms killing birds, requiring burning of fossil fuels to mine and manufacture parts, disposal issues; same with EV batteries. Solar panel farms are even worse.
5. Climate change ideology is anti-human, casting humans as evil and suggesting there are too many of us, continuing the outdated myth of an overpopulation crisis and ignoring the real crisis emerging which is an alarming trend of not meeting replacing reproduction. If human activity is causing climate change, then it will naturally reduce itself anyway as populations collapse.
6. The long and short of it is that people who gain power who believe in centralized solutions are usually psychopathic control freaks who will cherry pick the “experts” to suit an agenda designed to control the masses and drain as much money off them as possible for their own enrichment and aggrandizement. Climate change is the perfect vehicle for this because it can be framed as an existential threat.
7. The young will fall for this as did I for a time, but now I’ve been alive long enough to have heard “We only have ten years before doom!” enough times to have figured out it’s all a bunch of bullshit.
-
The fix always seems to be tied to more taxes so the Government can fix it, you know, like how they won the "war on Poverty" and the "War on Drugs" how they allocated billions to build charging stations and have built 7 or 8 of them.
-
ok. No one can define what the correct temperature should be. But at least some seem to understand that climate changes have occurred since the creation of this planet.
How about defining how fast the climate should be permitted to change?
oh, btw - while Man doesn't have the technology (yet) to control the climate, Man definitely has the capability to impact the climate. Deforest the planet or light off most of the nukes and the climate will most definitely change.
-
Geez, Rush is so much more eloquent than me.
-
Maybe someone can explain why these folks pushing the agenda seem to have huge mansions on the water with zero solar panels, riding around in huge gas guzzling vehicles and flying on private jets. Why do they not tell China to stop building coal fueled power plants? Why are we not allowed to build more modern nuclear plants?
-
Geez, Rush is so much more eloquent than me.
It’s the massive overdose of caffeine this time of day. ;D
-
The US and West in general have reduced carbon output. China and India have increased their carbon output hugely. Reducing our carbon output will have NO effect on the overall carbon output as long as China and India continue to belch out carbon. Why no pressure on them? Why do WE have to do all the work?
https://apnews.com/article/carbon-dioxide-climate-change-china-india-aa25e5a4271aa45810c435280bb97879
This year, the burning of fossil fuel and manufacturing of cement have added the equivalent of putting 2.57 million pounds (1.17 million kilograms) of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every second.
If China and India were excluded from the count, world carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and cement manufacturing would have dropped, Friedlingstein said.
The world in 2023 increased its annual emissions by 398 million metric tons, but it was in three places: China, India and the skies. China’s fossil fuel emissions went up 458 million metric tons from last year, India’s went up 233 million metric tons and aviation emissions increased 145 million metric tons.
Outside of India and China, the rest of the world’s fossil fuel emissions went down by 419 million metric tons, led by Europe’s 205 million metric ton drop and a decrease of 154 million metric tons in the United States.
-
The US and West in general have reduced carbon output. China and India have increased their carbon output hugely. Reducing our carbon output will have NO effect on the overall carbon output as long as China and India continue to belch out carbon. Why no pressure on them? Why do WE have to do all the work?
https://apnews.com/article/carbon-dioxide-climate-change-china-india-aa25e5a4271aa45810c435280bb97879 (https://apnews.com/article/carbon-dioxide-climate-change-china-india-aa25e5a4271aa45810c435280bb97879)
Because 8)
-
The US and West in general have reduced carbon output. China and India have increased their carbon output hugely. Reducing our carbon output will have NO effect on the overall carbon output as long as China and India continue to belch out carbon. Why no pressure on them? Why do WE have to do all the work?
https://apnews.com/article/carbon-dioxide-climate-change-china-india-aa25e5a4271aa45810c435280bb97879
We don't have to. Neither do China or India.
We do it because we (collectively) choose to do so. China and India choose not to. I have a friend that was in China recently (well, two years ago). He said you could SEE the air.
Global warming or sea level rise is not my main issue. I just don't like breathing air I can see.
-
Agreed. The LA basin in the 1970s was horrible. I couldn't take a deep breath without coughing. Orange skies were normal then. Twenty years later and you could easily see the mountains. The skies were much clearer and not a health threat. I haven't been back since then. Don't know if it's still good or not.
But being a good steward of the Earth doesn't rake in the tax money like a global warming emergency does.
-
When I see the obama and gates idiots building great mansions a couple inches above sea level, then flying their G650 to give a speech about the evils of gasoline powered vehicles, I want to scream.
Democrats think they are enthroned and their hypocrisy is because they are entitled and above things as insignificant as their abuse of the planet.
-
We don't have to. Neither do China or India.
We do it because we (collectively) choose to do so. China and India choose not to. I have a friend that was in China recently (well, two years ago). He said you could SEE the air.
Global warming or sea level rise is not my main issue. I just don't like breathing air I can see.
Agreed. The LA basin in the 1970s was horrible. I couldn't take a deep breath without coughing. Orange skies were normal then. Twenty years later and you could easily see the mountains. The skies were much clearer and not a health threat. I haven't been back since then. Don't know if it's still good or not.
But being a good steward of the Earth doesn't rake in the tax money like a global warming emergency does.
Back in the 1960s when we had a booming steel industry in western PA and I visited my relatives you could SEE the air and at the end of a day playing outside you were covered in black soot, and coughing and snotting black mucus. Today, that town is pristine. Why? No steel mills. We exported our pollution to China and India, etc. and now we are all holier than thou about our clean environment while importing the products they are now making for us, and criticizing them for polluting.
We love the cheap prices to buy their crap that we used to produce. When my husband went to China and installed pollution control equipment on their boilers, the Chinese smiled and bowed and said, "Yes, yes, we use," then the minute the American engineers left they turned them off. They were too complicated to maintain and reduced efficiency.
We need to dial back the globalism. Start producing locally again. Deal with the pollution with updated control technology. Pay the cost. Start manufacturing durable goods that don't need to be trashed and replaced every five minutes. We've gotten ourselves into quite a pickle here because all of that is going to involve a great increase in price for generations that were raised in a materialistic throwaway culture of cheap revolving door replaceable shit.
Don't get me started on the trash and landfills and shipping it all back to China to be dumped into the ocean.
-
My trash service stopped all recycling a few months back. They said they weren't making enough money off it. It's always about the money.
-
(http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7607.0;attach=4088)
-
My trash service stopped all recycling a few months back. They said they weren't making enough money off it. It's always about the money.
One of the things I love most about leaving the hellhole city and their stupid mandatory recycling ordinances. Here, everything goes into one garbage can. Having said that, I do care about the environment. I’m just not being fooled by the recycling scam. I have switched from plastic water bottles to Liquid Death, which comes in aluminum cans. They still go in the trash but at least are a natural element and not plastic. The plastic is supposedly bad for your health too. “Microplastics” ending up in your brain and men’s testicles. But then aluminum is implicated in Alzheimer’s so who the fuck knows. Everything is out to kill us.
-
Big cup with lots of ice and water from my filtered faucet.
-
Big cup with lots of ice and water from my filtered faucet.
I hate the taste of the water from our faucet, even after I filter it. I wish i could drink it. It's because we live literally on a swamp and our water table is mixed up with God knows what rot.
My favorite tap water was the city water when I was a little kid and they put tons of chlorine in it. I don't know what they purify it with now, it doesn't taste the same as it did back then. It tasted CLEAN back then.
-
I hate the taste of the water from our faucet, even after I filter it. I wish i could drink it. It's because we live literally on a swamp and our water table is mixed up with God knows what rot.
My favorite tap water was the city water when I was a little kid and they put tons of chlorine in it. I don't know what they purify it with now, it doesn't taste the same as it did back then. It tasted CLEAN back then.
How old are the water pipes in your house? Years ago we replaced all, and I mean ALL, the hot and cold water pipes in my house from the meter to every fixture. The water tasted oh so much better
-
How old are the water pipes in your house? Years ago we replaced all, and I mean ALL, the hot and cold water pipes in my house from the meter to every fixture. The water tasted oh so much better
About 12 years.
-
These are from Chris Martz......
Here are 10 questions for climate doomers:
➊ To the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius, what is the “correct” global mean surface temperature (GMST)?
➋ What does a “perfect” climate look like? If so, when did we have one and what was it like? Usually, activists will say “pre-industrial.” But, why?
➌ What is the “correct” amount of bad weather? How many tropical cyclones, tornadoes, thunderstorms, hailstorms, droughts, floods, heatwaves, cold waves and wildfires should there be per year globally? Please provide exact numbers and then explain why.
➍ Why do you think temperature departures from the 1850 climatic baseline mean is the sole metric which determines human welfare? Why would the climate of the Little Ice Age be preferable than today's climate? What was better about the climate in 1850 than that of 2024? Is today's climate too dangerous? If so, why? Provide data and evidence to support your reasoning
➎ What is the “correct” atmospheric carbon dioxide level? What dry-air volume or a range of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations would be optimal for plant growth? Show me data and explain why.
➏ The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was popularized as the biggest piece of climate legislation in history. But, since it was signed into law, climate activists say climate change has only gotten worse. Why?
Trillions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on so-called “climate action” over the past 35-years. When will that give us that perfect climate, and when it does how will we know? What measure?
➑ If the U.S. spends hundreds of trillions of dollars to decarbonize our economy to achieve “net zero” by the year 2050, then how much will it reduce GMST by the year 2100, assuming the climate models are accurate? Please round your answer to the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius and show your math!
➒ If you can't provide me with an answer to question eight, then here's my follow-up: If you don't know how much net zero emissions in the U.S. would reduce GMST by 2100, are we supposed to just spend all that money and see what happens?
➊⓿ Why do efforts to mitigate exclusively center on reducing carbon emissions, and ignore more effective strategies such as building weather-resilient infrastructure and enforcing stricter zoning codes?
For those on X, here is the post.....https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1808058513538929024 (https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1808058513538929024)
-
These are from Chris Martz......
For those on X, here is the post.....https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1808058513538929024 (https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1808058513538929024)
They will just claim you’re a “climate denier” and run out of the room.
-
They will just claim you’re a “climate denier” and run out of the room.
I was actually waiting for Azure to come and answer them. 8)
-
I was actually waiting for Azure to come and answer them. 8)
Not be
Fore she cries, whines about toxic masculinity, reminds us again, that she is a lesbian alien and how that makes her better than everyone else, and demands people get banned, and criminally charged for hurted her whittle feewings.